MAF/pilot shortage

[EagleRJ]

That an excellent example. What does it mean?

It means that a small cult has decided to take a piece of scripture as a commandment, that is, something that should be done, as opposed to understanding it as an example of the kind of power brought by the indwelling holy spirit. By the same token, because Christ and John the Baptist fasted in the desert for weeks on end, should we therefore conclude that we should do likewise?

So, here we have an individual church that follows the Bible to an even closer and more literal degree than you do, and you consider it a 'cult'?

I thought that was interesting.

If you have faith in God, and you believe that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is true, you must also be "intolerant" (how I love that old liberal favorite) of false teachings, false doctrines, and false beliefs. If God is right, and His word is true, then how can other views not consistent with God's word have any value?

I agree that God's Word is true. Once again, it's in the interpretation where we apparently differ.

The Taliban was a cult from an evil and false teaching that helped to inspire the killing of thousands of innocent lives. Comparing the Taliban to the righteousness of God is like comparing Michael Jackson to Pat Tillman.

I didn't compare the Taliban to the righteousness of God. If you read my previous posts, I compared the Evangelicals' attitude of exclusivity and righteousness to that of the Taliban. That the attitude is derived from the Bible and not the Koran is immaterial.

I pity them because God's heart is broken for them, and they ignore the sacrifice He made as being a "myth." How sad is that? It's "pitiful."

Again, which Christian denomination considers the Crucifixion to be a "myth"? None that I know of.

No one involved in the "troubles," as they were called, were Biblical Christians. The Catholics weren't, and the protestants were following a liberal Church of England Anglican doctrine. That same church is the Bristish source of the church mentioned above that just created a gay bishop. What does that tell you about Northern Ireland? It tells me it was a political dispute among two groups who divided themselves along "religious" lines, neither of whom were "believers."

Actually, the Troubles were nationalist in nature, not secular. The whole thing was about the English and the Irish fighting over who was living in which neighborhood and going to which school. Hence Catholics and Protestants living in peace everywhere else in the world.

As to your statement, I consider both Catholics and Protestants to be Christian by definition, but I guess that's where we differ in opinion.

Sorry again. Fiirst of all "arrogant" should be spelled "accurate." Second, it makes no difference whatsoever if someone believes as I do. It makes ALL the difference if they believe something that does not come from GOD. That's the difference.

Ecumenical people see different beliefs as a sort of a spiritual "smorgasboard," where it doesn't really matter "how" or "what" you believe, as long as you believe it. This opens the door to a "do it yoursel" spirtuality, where anything goes, such as drinking poison, gay bishops, and flying planes into buildings.

Ecumenical views don't stand up to scripture. The Bible clearly says that it is 100% error free and inspired by God to be precisely what He intends. According to God, we are to spread HIS word, not just "accept" other ideas, nor make up our own as it suits us.

So what is your position on people who identify themselves as agnostic. That is, they believe in God but they don't follow any particular denomination? Are they un-believers?

No, you should not look to "me" for guidance on what is true. You should look to the word of God.........So if you have an argument, it isn't an argument with me. It is an argument with God.

I knew that your response would be precisely that!

 

[Timebuilder]

So, here we have an individual church that follows the Bible to an even closer and more literal degree than you do, and you consider it a 'cult'?

The degree of "literal" is not the determinant. They are misinterpreting the scipture as a "commandment" of behavior, where it is clearly not.

Gee, I thought I had explained that pretty well, too.

I agree that God's Word is true. Once again, it's in the interpretation where we apparently differ.

If you have an interpretation that can stand up to the totality of scripture, one that does not require you to replace a Biblical principle with a principle of Man, then share it. I am eager to listen.

I didn't compare the Taliban to the righteousness of God. If you read my previous posts, I compared the Evangelicals' attitude of exclusivity and righteousness to that of the Taliban. That the attitude is derived from the Bible and not the Koran is immaterial.

Here is what is "material."

If it comes from God, it is good, and should be followed. Once again, it is not the attitude or degree of strength of belief that determines value, it is whether or not the principles come from God.

I think you want to shift this into a "the Taliban is just like Evangelicals" argument, but that doesn't wash. If you are the Taliban, you are earnestly against God. If you are an Evangelical, you are earnestly FOR Him.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and God makes that determination, not Man.

Again, which Christian denomination considers the Crucifixion to be a "myth"? None that I know of.

I never said that there was a "Christian denomination" that believes the crucifixtion was a myth. There is no "Christian denomination." There is following Christ, acccording to His word, and there is not doing so. Plain and simple.

Denominations are constructs of Man. They are worthless.

I was speaking about those who reject His sacrifice as being a myth, or a story about a made-up old Man. What did one poster here say? A puppet master in the sky? If that were true there would be no need for a savior, since no one would do anything without God's direct approval. No sin, no savior. It doesn't work that way.

Actually, the Troubles were nationalist in nature, not secular. The whole thing was about the English and the Irish fighting over who was living in which neighborhood and going to which school. Hence Catholics and Protestants living in peace everywhere else in the world.

When did I say they were secular? I simply said that neither side were Christians, which was your contention.

For as much difference as it would have made, they could have been the Sharks and the Jets.

As to your statement, I consider both Catholics and Protestants to be Christian by definition, but I guess that's where we differ in opinion.

Here is the definition you need: following Christ, according to His word, the Bible. If you don't do that, and you have gay bishops and pray to Christ's mother, I'm sorry, you are not following His teaching. In that case, it is wholly correct that these two groups don't say "Christian" in their name.

So what is your position on people who identify themselves as agnostic. That is, they believe in God but they don't follow any particular denomination? Are they un-believers?

Here is the imprtant point about the "believer" part: it refers to believing in Christ, and accepting His sacrifice on your behalf as a sinner, and asking Him to come into your heart.

Without that, anyone is a non-believer. That's according to Him, God the father/son/spirit.

I knew that your response would be precisely that!

Precisely because that is what God says, not me.

I'd say to he11 with most of 'em. Why God cares about us is beyond me.

And that's probably a good thing for all of us.

 

[onthebeach]

Very interesting reading:

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp

(copy & paste to link)

Aviation reference: Why Roman Catholicism "won't fly"